History Of Communism Research Paper

(a) the idea of social and political thought,

(b) state political systems with particular emphasis on dictatorship (totalitarian ideas), and

(c) economic systems, especially nonmarket economies, planned economies and autarchies.

Research on communist political movements and systems of state has been complicated seriously due to changes in time and space since both have existed for almost 100 years and have manifested themselves in different cultural zones of the world, most intensively, however, in Europe and East Asia.

1. The Idea

The ideas of communism have surfaced since antiquity and have been present throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. The proponents of communism resorted to moral or economic arguments advocating the need to organize societies as communities owning means of production and consumption. These ideas were adopted by some socialists in the nineteenth century. Marx and Engels published their ‘Communist Manifesto’ (1848). To substantiate his ideas Engels drew on the then studies on primitive societies as representative of classless communities (the natural state of society was disrupted by the division into social classes). However, the notions of socialism and communism were sometimes used interchangeably in the nineteenth century. When social democracy developed in many countries, socialists hardly ever used the notion of communism, whereas anarchists resorted to it occasionally (Kropotkin’s anarchocommunism).

Communist ideas have acquired a new meaning since 1918. They became equivalent to the ideas of Marxism–Leninism, that is, the interpretation of Marxism by Lenin and his sucessors. Endorsing the final objective, namely the creation of a community owning means of production and providing each of its participants with consumption ‘according to their needs,’ they put forward the recognition of the class struggle as a dominating principle of a social development. In addition, workers (i.e., the proletariat) were to carry out the mission of the reconstruction of the society. Conducting a socialist revolution headed by the a antgarde of the proletariat, that is, the party, was hailed to be a historical necessity. Moreover, the introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated. In the following decades communist ideas have been subject to dogmatizing, on the one hand, and, on the other, to current political pressures. Paramount importance was attributed to the ‘classics,’ namely to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, as well as Stalin during his rule. It was only the later ‘classics’ (i.e., Lenin and Stalin) who were believed to be entitled to correct and amend the views of the earlier ‘classics.’ The communist ideology was expanded to include new components such as an exemplary role of the USSR and ‘the principle of exacerbating the class struggle parallel to the building of socialism’ (Stalin), which was called into question after 1953. In the years to follow the idea of a peaceful coexistence of socialism and capitalism as well as that of a peaceful transition to socialism were added. Some differences have surfaced between communist ideas endorsed in the USSR and the Soviet bloc, in Yugoslavia, where social and economic aspects of self-government were regarded as significant features of the communist ideology, and in China, where Maoism became a revolutionary ideology of the suppressed ‘Third World’ directed against capitalist metropolics (Harrison 1972) as well as of the ‘rural guerrilla revolution’ (Cohen 1964). Some West European countries endorsed the ideology of Euro-communism, i.e. a transition to socialism, which complied with all rules of democracy and renounced the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the whole, the ideology gradually lost its momentum in the countries governed by communists, particularly in the Soviet bloc. A much greater significance was attached to this ideology by groups opposing the Soviet-style communism. In the late 1960s some milieus of ‘the new left’ in Europe and America formulated the ideas of communist spontaneity, which were in opposition to capitalism and bureaucratic communism.

Many researchers have treated communist ideas mostly as one of the interpretations of Marxism. Popper (1945) wrote about the division of Marxists into radical (communist) and moderate (social democratic) wings. Walicki (1995) claimed that Leninism and Stalinism ‘were dominant forms of the Marxist ideology of the 20th century.’ In his work on Marxism Kolakowski (1978) handled the ideas of Leninism as one of the interpretations of Marxism, yet in some areas he saw them as a departure from Marx’s original views. An even clearer division of communist ideas from Marxism was drawn by Furet (1995). Although he did not deny that these ideas had originated from Marxism, Furet pointed to other sources of origin such as Russian populist ideas.

2. The Political Movement

When in 1903 the Russian Social Democracy split into two groups, the majority faction was called ‘Bolshe-viks’ and the minority ‘Mensheviks.’ The Bolsheviks in 1912 formed a separate party, an organization of active revolutionaries. Although the principle of democratic centralism was introduced, in practice the system was centralist and devoid of any traces of democracy. Furthermore, violence was endorsed as a fundamental means of political activity. All these features could be accounted for by the situation in Russia, where the parliamentary system was in its infancy and despotism ruled unabated. The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in 1917, whereas in 1918 they transformed themselves into a communist party. Since 1918 communist parties emerged also in other countries, mostly as a result of a split within socialist parties. In 1919 the Communist International (Comintern) was set up and it soon became centralized and dependent, as a matter of fact, on the Russian (or later Soviet) party. The terms ‘communism’ and ‘bolshevism’ were still used interchangeably and ‘bolshevisation’ came to denote the process of following suit and imitating the example of the Russian party.

Communist political movements manifested them-selves most intensively in Europe and in China. They kept changing their political profiles adopting to the then current situation on the international arena (e.g., under the pressure of the 1929–1933 crisis), but, above all, complying with interests of the Soviet Union. In the 1930s this compliance was linked with Stalin assuming the role of the undisputed leader of the international communist movement. Opposition groups were excluded from the movement. One of the few groupings which remained active were the proponents of Leo Trotsky, a prominent party leader expelled from the Soviet Union. However, in the late 1930s, when faced with the threat of fascism, communist parties started to endorse the slogans of parliamentary democracy and entered into cooperation with socialists and even nonsocialist democratic parties (the ‘People’s Front’).

When the Soviet Union entered into an agreement with Germany in 1939, communist parties all over the world declared their neutrality towards both parties in World War II. This policy was subject to a drastic change following the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union. Only then did communist parties come to regard the struggle against fascism as their priority and fostered the idea of forming the National Front. The idea, however, was rarely put into practice for several reasons including dependence of communists on the Soviet Union (although Comintern was dis-solved in 1943) and their aspirations to play a dominant role in the resistance movement.

When World War II was drawing to an end communist parties took over power in the countries in which the Soviet army was present as well as in Yugoslavia and Albania. In the countries occupied by the armies of the Western allies, communists frequently entered into ruling coalitions. With the escalation of conflict between two political blocs and an upsurge of the ‘cold war,’ communist parties in the West went into opposition. The Soviet control over the international communist movement was strengthened anew in 1947 when the Information Bureau of Communist and Workers’ Parties (Cominform) was established comprising the largest European parties. A year later the first serious conflict between parties came to the fore, when the Yugoslav party was condemned by Cominform. The victory of the communist party in China in 1949 (and later in Vietnam and Cuba) laid foundations for subsequent decentralization of the communist movement.

The process of decentralization took place gradually following the death of Stalin in 1953, who three years later was accused of great atrocities. The escalation of the crisis in 1956 brought about the dissolution of Cominform, and resulted in reforms in Poland and a revolution in Hungary. The 1960s witnessed a conflict between the Soviet and the Chinese parties during which some other parties attempted to take advantage of the situation and gain independence. Yet another crisis, triggered by the intervention of the Soviet bloc in Czechoslovakia, resulted in the adoption of Eurocommunist ideas by some West European parties in the 1970s. At the same time, small communist groupings emerged in the West drawing on the experiences (or rather their own visions of the experiences) of China, Vietnam, Cuba, or Yugoslavia. Further crises in the international communist movement were linked to the Polish conflicts of 1980–1981. In the 1980s both ruling and opposition communist parties showed symptoms of decay. After the collapse of communist systems in Europe nearly all communist parties rejected their former ideological and/organizational principles and transformed into socialist or social democratic parties.

In the countries ruled by communists a considerable number of works on the communist movement was published, yet their content was subject to control. The most important publications had even an official character (The History of the Communist Party 1938). Little changed in this respect in the communist historiography after the ‘destalinization’ although the party ceased to stress the official character of publications, relying heavily on the censorship and monitoring of publications. These publications rarely contained reliable information, featuring mainly interpretations devoid of any critical approach and containing hagiographic accents.

Many publications were written by representatives of the communist opposition, who embraced the fundamentals of communism yet criticized the political line of Stalin and his successors, as it was in the case of the Trotskyists. Some of these texts resembled political commentaries and contained different information not included in the official and semi-official communist literature. This trend comprised also publications based on extensive studies (e.g., Deutscher 1949, 1954, 1959, 1963).

Works by noncommunist authors fall into yet another category of literature relating to the history of the working-class movement. Although this literature contained fewer political commentaries, it demonstrated a strong socialist bias. From a left-wing socialist perspective, communism, in spite of all its shortcomings, was perceived as a proletariat movement close to socialist ideas and as a potential ally in the socialists’ struggle against the bourgeoisie (e.g., Braunthal 1960). Right-wing socialists, on the other hand, saw it as a hostile force striving to exert influence over the same social class. In recent decades, however, the history of the workers’ movement encompassing the history of the communist movement has become subject to more academic research.

Amongst authors who dealt with the communist movement there were some who came from within the party ranks as well as those who broke free from its legacy (Borkenau 1938, 1953). Others were emigrants from countries governed by communists, who drew on their life experience and language skills (Fejto 1974). One should also consider here expert publications of academic institutions which dealt with communism as a sideline political movement within a larger scope of interests relating to the so-called Sovietology.

3. The Political And Socioeconomic System

Communists themselves are more prone to call it a socialist system. For the first time, such a system was introduced in Russia after 1917. The principles of it were outlined by Lenin before the victory of the revolution, yet his work on this subject was published only when the Bolsheviks came to power (Gosudarstwo i rewoljucija 1918). Two principles were of particular significance: (a) the state has to resort to violence in the political and social life, and (b) elements of a centralized bureaucracy, that is, record keeping and monitoring, play a key role in the organization of the economy.

In the Soviet political system the leading role was assigned to the centralized communist monoparty devoid of any traces of democracy within its ranks. All organizations were subordinated to the party and headed by its members. Moreover, the party exercised control over all publications and mass media directly or through state departments (e.g., censorship).

The state authorities at all levels reported to party organs. Initially the state authorities were organized in a hierarchical structure of councils with some chosen representatives of lower level sitting on the councils of a higher level. Following the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922, the party and state authorities were to function according to the principles of a federal state. The 1936 constitution provided for general elections at all tiers of power. In practice, however, soon after communists came to power they introduced the principle of nominating from above, a principle that applied to both the party and state authorities. The approval of such nominations in public elections was a mere formality.

This political system was adopted after World War II in all communist countries. In the Soviet bloc, which included European communist countries (with the exception of Yugoslavia since 1948 and Albania since the 1960s) as well as Mongolia and North Korea (for a couple of years), there were initially informal methods of control from Moscow. System monitoring was exercised through the Cominform and Soviet advisers or directives sent to high-ranking officials. Since 1956 methods of control were restricted and formalized by means of political and military structures of the Warsaw Pact, as well as structures of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). The remaining communist countries enjoyed a full or partial independence. Yugoslavia carried out some transformations in its political system, introducing elements of a limited federalism and a local government.

Gradually the centralized systems began to crumble on international and state levels alike. Retaining its leading role, the USSR had to take into account more and more frequently the positions of the countries within the Soviet bloc. Following the crisis in Czechoslovakia and the invasion of the country by the Soviet bloc, the Brezhnev doctrine was proclaimed (1968) asserting the right of the communist community to intervene when any of its members demonstrates ‘anti-socialist degeneration.’ Several countries of the Soviet Block and China managed to hand down some power to regional levels.

A considerable autonomy was enjoyed by the police, and above all by security services. They gained a strong position in the period of widespread repression in the Soviet Union (collectivization and ‘big cleansing’ in the 1930s) as well as in the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence (in the late 1940s and early 1950s) and in China (during the cultural revolution). Furthermore, security services attempted to exert a still greater political influence also in other periods.

Another pivotal element of the system was the army. In the Soviet Union it owed its position to the role played in introducing the system and in World War II. Later it was a key means supporting the rivalry between superpowers and political blocs as well as the Soviet expansion in the countries of the Third World. Similarly, in China and Vietnam, the army was the co-creator of the system. In Poland the army won a particular importance in the face of the imposition of martial law in 1981. On the other hand, party officials feared an excessive degree of independence of the army, which had far-reaching repercussions in the Soviet Union during repressions directed towards army officials in the 1930s.

Since 1953 several communist countries, particularly those belonging to the Soviet bloc, witnessed recurring political crises. They were triggered by people’s rising democratic aspirations influenced by examples emanating from Western democracies, by the lack of respect for national sovereignty and, to a large extent, by a growing economic crisis and a low standard of living. Another precipitating factor was the disillusionment as to the application of communist ideas in practice. Communist officials adopted the formula of ‘real socialism’ as a form of the existing system hindered by historical limitations on the road to the socialist and communist future.

The economy in communist countries was sub-ordinated to politics. Nationalization was implemented in all spheres of economic life. Although agriculture and, to some degree, trade and small production were formally owned by cooperatives, they were supervised by the party and state administration. There were only negligible relics of private ownership with the exception of Poland and Yugoslavia where agriculture remained in private hands.

Centralized state planning functioned on the basis of 5-year plans, the allocation of raw materials and means of investments, regulated prices, and rationing commodities for sale. A top priority was the needs of the state, which resulted often from an international policy. A particular emphasis was placed on the development of heavy industry and reservoirs of raw materials, neglecting other branches of production. In the face of constant shortages and a crippled economy, many goods intended for production and consumption were subject to different forms of rationing. The state’s monopoly on foreign trade along with slow technological progress, a limited exports potential and, consequently, import deficit led to a form of economic autarchy. Yugoslavia’s economy demonstrated a slight divergence from this general pattern after the introduction of self-government in enterprises. More-over, Yugoslavia fostered more extensively mechanisms of the market economy and managed to avoid autarchy. Nonetheless, it put a limit on foreign investments and failed to develop technological innovations.

Communist systems which were created almost exclusively in poorly developed or underdeveloped countries, demonstrated initially a high rate of economic growth. The rapid industrialization combined with urban development was based on extensive factors such as a cheap labor force. However, as these factors were gradually exhausted, the growth rate began to decline and the standard of living stabilized at a low level. Among other factors which aggravated the crisis were the growing costs of the arms race and political rivalry between superpowers and blocs.

From the late 1950s attempts were made to over-come the crisis. On the one hand, restraints of the arms race were accepted (the Helsinki Agreement of 1975, treaties on nonproliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons) and, on the other hand, planned economies were transformed slightly by introducing in them elements of a market economy and stimuli of a technological progress. In spite of a successful arms race reduction the costs of armaments and political expansion still exceeded the economic potential of communist countries, whereas the introduction of elements of market economy generated strong resistance of the bureaucracy in the state and the party administration.

The 1980s saw not only a growing opposition against the political system but also an ever stronger conviction of an upcoming defeat shared by communist officials. The need to conduct economic re-forms called for a more extensive popular support, which was possible to achieve thanks to political reforms. Political reforms were pursued to a limited extent in the Soviet Union (economic perestoyka) accompanied by political glasnost – transparency) and in Poland (the ‘round table’ talks, an attempt to achieve a compromise with the opposition). Finally, the attempts to carry out limited reforms of the economic system were doomed to failure. Coupled with a disintegrated political system, they led to the collapse of communism over the years 1989–1991.

In China, however, the authorities resorted to extreme means of repression against the opposition (the massacre at the Tian’anmen square, 1989). They were then successful in effecting its economic reforms encompassing devolution; privatization of agriculture, small-and medium-size industry, and trade; as well as the introduction of elements of market economy. The country managed to restore a fast rate of economic growth and development creating openings for foreign investments linked with the import of new technologies. The future will show the results of these reforms.

Communist researchers into the political and economic system concentrated their work mostly on its premises rather than on reality. A distinct character was noticeable only in the discussions before the 1930s which touched upon the ‘Asiatic system of production.’ These works tackled directly the prospects of building of the communist system in China, and, indirectly, they reflected some ideas on the political and economic system in Russia. Amongst basic characteristics of oriental societies they featured a dominating role of the state in the economy and, consequently, the durability of absolutist and bureaucratic tendencies. This concept was raised in discussions in the 1920s by Wittfogel. He broke away later with communism and came to regard the Soviet Union as a follower of Asian despotic systems (1962).

Later, the communist authors emphasized the class conditioning of the system. Many works presented a mystified picture of common interests of the state and society. They referred also to the notions of ‘People’s Democracy’ or ‘Socialist Democracy’ (as a state of equal opportunities). Communist publications are of little academic value, yet sometimes they can communicate significant information.

In the noncommunist literature as a whole there were prominent publications which dealt with communist systems within a wider historical framework. In particular, they referred to the connections between the history of Russia and of the Soviet Union. The principle of a historical continuity was propagated (Kucharzewski 1948, Pipes 1990, 1993, Besancon 1980). This conception was often accompanied by a tendency to view communist systems as something superimposed by the USSR upon other countries.

The notion of totalitarianism was used initially in Italian fascism, later by researchers whose works dealt with German national socialism. In the wake of experiences and the atmosphere of the ‘cold war’, communist systems were regarded by some researchers as one of the forms of totalitarianism (Arendt 1951, Friedrich and Brzezinski 1956). Arendt saw the roots of totalitarian systems above all in the current demise of human values and the crisis of principles underlying the existence of societies and individuals. Friedrich and Brzezinski focused mainly on the techniques of wielding power and the totalitarian syndrome.

Concrete studies of the system were heavily influenced by the concept of totalitarianism (Fainsod 1953). The concept of communism as a form of totalitarian systems was undermined to some extent as a result of growing tendencies towards de-centralization and curbing repression. Researchers started to concentrate more on the differences between communist countries as well as on the fact of how inconsistent their respective systems were (Brzezinski 1960). Another approach to communism stipulated that the system was an attempt to implement utopia invented by doctrinaires (Heller and Niekricz 1982, Malia 1994). There were also other interpretations of the communist system according to which it was a peculiar way to modernization concerning in particular the Third World (Schurmann 1966).

Some authors treated communism above all as a system of genocide. Political commentaries on the subject emerged before World War II. Afterwards, scientific studies were preceded by documentary literature (Herling-Grudzinski 1951, Solzhenitsyn 1974). A different interpretation claimed that Stalinism was only a criminal distortion of the communist system (Medvedev 1971). In the 1960s, Conquest (1968) published monographs on various aspects of genocide in the Soviet Union. Most recently an international team has tried to apply a comprehensive approach to this problem (Courtois et al. 1997).

At present, communist systems exist exclusively in the Far East and in Cuba. These areas require further studies devoted to their specific character and ability to stand the test of time.

Bibliography:

1. Arendt H 1951 The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1st edn. Harcourt Brace, New York
2. Besancon A 1980 Present sovietique et passe russe. Librairic
3. Generale Francaise, Paris
4. Borkenau F 1938 The Communist International. Faber & Faber, London
5. Borkenau F 1953 European Communism. Faber and Faber, London
6. Braunthal J 1960 Geschichte der Internationale. Verlag J.H.W. Dietz Nachf., Berlin and Bonn
7. Brzezinski Z 1960 The So iet Block—Unity and Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
8. Carrere d’Encausse H 1981a Lenin: Re olution and Power. Longman, London
9. Carrere d’Encausse H 1981b Stalin: Order through Terror. Longman, London
10. Cohen A A 1964 The Communism of Mao-Tsetung. The
11. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
12. Conquest R 1968 The Great Terror. McMillan, London
13. Courtois S, Werth N, Panne J-L, Paczkowski A, Bartosek K, Margolin J-L 1997 Le li re noir du communisme. Crimes, terreur et repression. Editions Robert Laffont, Paris
14. Deutscher J 1949 Stalin. A Political Biography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
15. Deutscher J 1954 The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879–1921. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
16. Deutscher J 1959 The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky 1921–1929. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
17. Deutscher J 1963 The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky 1929–1940. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
18. Fainsod M 1953 How Russia is Ruled. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
19. Fejto F 1974 History of the People’s Democracies. Eastern Europe since Stalin. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK
20. Friedrich C, Brzezinski Z K 1956 Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
21. Furet F 1995 Le passe d’une illusion: Essai sur I’idee communiste au XXe siecle. Editions Laffont, Paris
22. Harrison J P 1972 The Long March to Power. A History of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921–1972. Praeger, New York Heller M, Niekricz A 1982 Utopija u wlasti. Istorija Sowietskogo
23. Sojuza z 1917 goda do naszych dnicj. Overseas Publications Interchange Ltd., London
24. Herling-Grudzinski G 1951 A World Apart. Heinemann, London
25. Kolakowski L 1978 Main Currents of Marxism. Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution, Vols. 1–3. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK
26. Kucharzewski J 1948 The Origins of Modern Russia. Polish Institute of Art and Sciences, New York
27. Malia M 1994 The Soviet Tragedy. A History of Socialism in Russia 1917–1991. Free Press, New York
28. Medvedev R 1971 Let History Judge. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
29. Pipes R 1990 The Russian Revolution, 1st edn. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
30. Pipes R. 1993 Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, 1st edn. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
31. Popper K R 1945 The Open Society and its Enemies. Routledge and Sons, London
32. Schapiro L 1965 The Goverment and Politics of the Soviet Union. Random House, New York
33. Schurmann F 1966 Ideology and/organization in Communist China. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
34. Solzhenitsyn A I 1974 The Gulag Archipelago, 1918–1956: An Experiment in Literacy Investigation. Harper & Row, New York
35. Walicki A 1995 Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom. The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
36. Wittfogel K A 1962 Dic orientalische Despotie. Eine erglei-chende Untersuchung totaler Macht. Kiepenhauer und Witsch, Koln